GeForce GTX 670M vs Quadro K3000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K3000M with GeForce GTX 670M, including specs and performance data.

K3000M
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
4.01

GTX 670M outperforms K3000M by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking715691
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.85no data
Power efficiency3.844.08
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGK104GF114
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)22 March 2012 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$155 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores576336
Core clock speed654 MHz598 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate31.3933.49
Floating-point processing power0.7534 TFLOPS0.8037 TFLOPS
ROPs3224
TMUs4856

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizelargelarge
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 2.0
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)MXM-B (3.0)
SLI options-+

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1536 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit192bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth89.6 GB/s72.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
HDMI-+
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno dataUp to 2048x1536

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus++

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 API
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA++

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

K3000M 4.01
GTX 670M 4.26
+6.2%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

K3000M 1640
GTX 670M 1745
+6.4%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

K3000M 2427
GTX 670M 2698
+11.2%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

K3000M 11902
GTX 670M 12670
+6.5%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

K3000M 4221
GTX 670M 6497
+53.9%

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

K3000M 14
GTX 670M 20
+42.9%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p33
−18.2%
39
+18.2%
Full HD37
−10.8%
41
+10.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.19no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Fortnite 21−24
−8.7%
24−27
+8.7%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−5.3%
20−22
+5.3%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%
Valorant 50−55
−3.7%
55−60
+3.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
−28.2%
91
+28.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Dota 2 35−40
−2.8%
35−40
+2.8%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Fortnite 21−24
−8.7%
24−27
+8.7%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−5.3%
20−22
+5.3%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 50−55
−3.7%
55−60
+3.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Dota 2 35−40
−2.8%
35−40
+2.8%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−5.3%
20−22
+5.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 50−55
−3.7%
55−60
+3.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
−8.7%
24−27
+8.7%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−33
−6.7%
30−35
+6.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
−3.6%
27−30
+3.6%
Valorant 40−45
−7%
45−50
+7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%
Valorant 20−22
−5%
21−24
+5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1

This is how K3000M and GTX 670M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 670M is 18% faster in 900p
  • GTX 670M is 11% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 670M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 670M is ahead in 42 tests (71%)
  • there's a draw in 17 tests (29%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.01 4.26
Recency 1 June 2012 22 March 2012
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1536 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm

K3000M has an age advantage of 2 months, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 670M, on the other hand, has a 6.2% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro K3000M and GeForce GTX 670M.

Be aware that Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 670M is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro K3000M
Quadro K3000M
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M
GeForce GTX 670M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 70 votes

Rate Quadro K3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 94 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 670M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K3000M or GeForce GTX 670M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.